Mark I tank photo from IWM

[RodB]

The IWM has this photo of what looks like a well-camouflaged Mk I female tank. The IWM text describes it as "The first official photograph taken of a Tank going into action, at theBattle of Flers-Courcelette". Is this correct ? The US Library of Congress also holds a very high definition version of it (unfortunately with no description), which may indicate it was a significant photo for the news media in the US. Somebody has uploaded the LOC version to Wikipedia as "Mark I series tank and crewman at Thetford in "Solomon" camouflage". Dunno where they got that from. is the Solomon camouflage bit correct ? I understand they eventually went for an overall brown colour. ??

[calibre792x57.y]

Someone will be along shortly who knows a lot about it; but I believe it is generally accepted that the photo was taken at Thetford and is said to show an early form of aerial for a wireless. Solomon camouflage yes. This was toned down a bit when the tanks actually reached France and on later Marks became a drab brown. All a bit irrelevant when you think that due to the absence of any mudguard the whole thing became plastered with mud. SW

[delta]

It's an interesting question to which the answer is unknown.

The "Solomon" camouflage was introduced at Elveden and some pictures of tank in France show it still in place.

It was later "obscured" as it was rather garish.

It is the only picture, I have seen, with the wire mesh of this type. Some have suggested it might be linked to a form of wireless apparatus but I am unconvinced; it is more likely to be an anti-grenade system.

[Alan Graham]

Slightly off topic but...

As a kid I lived in Hatfield and used Hatfield House Park as a playground. A major part of my adventures invovled playing on the Mk1 tank displayed there. We would jump inside it sometimes but more often than not it had been used for unsavoury activities!

We got quiet upset when they moved it away to the museum. I've never visited it but I wonder if they'd let me play on it if I did...

[centurion]

It's an interesting question to which the answer is unknown.

The "Solomon" camouflage was introduced at Elveden and some pictures of tank in France show it still in place.

It was later "obscured" as it was rather garish.

It is the only picture, I have seen, with the wire mesh of this type. Some have suggested it might be linked to a form of wireless apparatus but I am unconvinced; it is more likely to be an anti-grenade system.

I would agree about the mesh. When wireless was finally installed in a few MkIs it was placed in one of the sponsons (which had the guns removed to make room. and a tall pole fastened to the cab used to support the aerial wires, AFAIK the first tanks to have wireless, guns and an aerial set around the hull were American manned MKV*s. Unfortunately whilst there is written evidence that these existed I've never been able to find a photo.

I've also seen references to the OP photo being at Thetford.

[Alan Graham]

It's an interesting question to which the answer is unknown.

The "Solomon" camouflage was introduced at Elveden and some pictures of tank in France show it still in place.

It was later "obscured" as it was rather garish.

It is the only picture, I have seen, with the wire mesh of this type. Some have suggested it might be linked to a form of wireless apparatus but I am unconvinced; it is more likely to be an anti-grenade system.

My first reaction on seeing the mesh was anti-grenade. If it was one of the first to be used in battle maybe it was a quick fix to a problem pointed out by those 'on the ground'. The later cage would have been rolled out asap but also looks like a design after-thought.

[delta]

A number of Mark I tanks, used by C Company in September 1916, were fitted with anti greande netting

C16 shown below being one of them.

IIRC they were fitted at the Loop, before they deployed on 13 September.

Those in No 1 section, in action at Courcelette, were not so fitted

[centurion]

A number of Mark I tanks, used by C Company in September 1916, wee fitted with anti greande netting

C16 shown below being one of them.

IIRC they were fitted at the Loop, before they deployed on 13 September.

Those in No 1 section, in action at Courcelette, were not so fitted

Looking at these two photos there appears to have been two sizes of anti grenade roof, one which also covered the sponsons as well as the hull and one that didn't

[tipperary]

Would the one covering sponsons cause problems for railway transport hence narrow version.john

[centurion]

Would the one covering sponsons cause problems for railway transport hence narrow version.john

The sponsons on Mks I II and III had to be removed before entraining and fitted back after detraining. Likewise the height of the anti grenade roofs would breach the British loading gauge. The French system being younger than the British was more liberal but its likely that whilst they might have been tried out in Britain any grenade roofs used in action would have to be fitted in France.

[Gerald Moore]

Trevor Pidgeon, in "The Tanks at Flers", commented as follows regarding this photo: "Often described as the first official picture of a Mark I going into action at the Battle of Flers-Courcelette, this photograph must in fact have been taken at Elveden. The journey up to the tanks' battle positions in September took place during the late evening and night over ground far more cluttered with wagons, horses, guns and men. Also the men in the background display a marked lack of interest quite uncharacteristic of the tanks' first appearance on the battlefield. But most of all, the improvised netting shows that this tank was one of those used at Elveden for experiments carried out there, not only to protect the tank against grenades by means of a ridged roof of wire mesh but also to use the mesh as an aerial for wireless. The final shape of the roof was quite different."

Col. Swinton. in "Eyewitness" confirmed that wireless experiments with tanks took place at Elveden, but he gave no detail about the configuration of the wireless antenna. I would agree with Centurion that this mesh roof bears no resemblence to the wireless mast seen fitted to a MkI tank in photos taken during a visit by Queen Mary to a tankdrome in May 1917. or to the wireless antenna employed by some MkIV tanks at Third Ypres.

Multiple accounts, not least that of Solomon himself, confirm that the tanks received a camouflage paint scheme at Elveden. Basil Henriques, in "Indiscretions of a Warden", mentions that the colours were toned down soon after arrival in France in late August 1916. "Solomon" pattern camouflage is still seen on tanks in Nov. 1916. Most of the surviving tanks appear to have been overpainted in a monochrome brown in Jan. 1917.

[Tom W.]

It is the only picture, I have seen, with the wire mesh of this type. Some have suggested it might be linked to a form of wireless apparatus but I am unconvinced; it is more likely to be an anti-grenade system.

It was specifically designed to defeat the "concentrated charge" (geballte Ladung) that the Germans created by strapping six to nine extra explosive heads to a hand grenade.

The concentrated charges were so powerful that they could blow holes in the walls of forts and destroy entire trench sections. The British anticipated what became standard German antitank practice, which was to throw a concentrated charge onto the top of the tank. The anti-grenade meshes were removed because the Germans soon attached large fishhooks to the concentrated charges so they'd tangle in the mesh and explode directly over the tank. If a concentrated charge were thrown badly and missed, or if it hit and then rolled off the roof, the tank had a better chance of surviving than it had with the mesh in place.

[RodB]

Trevor Pidgeon, in "The Tanks at Flers", commented as follows regarding this photo: "Often described as the first official picture of a Mark I going into action at the Battle of Flers-Courcelette, this photograph must in fact have been taken at Elveden. The journey up to the tanks' battle positions in September took place during the late evening and night over ground far more cluttered with wagons, horses, guns and men. Also the men in the background display a marked lack of interest quite uncharacteristic of the tanks' first appearance on the battlefield. But most of all, the improvised netting shows that this tank was one of those used at Elveden for experiments carried out there, not only to protect the tank against grenades by means of a ridged roof of wire mesh but also to use the mesh as an aerial for wireless. The final shape of the roof was quite different."

Col. Swinton. in "Eyewitness" confirmed that wireless experiments with tanks took place at Elveden, but he gave no detail about the configuration of the wireless antenna. I would agree with Centurion that this mesh roof bears no resemblence to the wireless mast seen fitted to a MkI tank in photos taken during a visit by Queen Mary to a tankdrome in May 1917. or to the wireless antenna employed by some MkIV tanks at Third Ypres.

Multiple accounts, not least that of Solomon himself, confirm that the tanks received a camouflage paint scheme at Elveden. Basil Henriques, in "Indiscretions of a Warden", mentions that the colours were toned down soon after arrival in France in late August 1916. "Solomon" pattern camouflage is still seen on tanks in Nov. 1916. Most of the surviving tanks appear to have been overpainted in a monochrome brown in Jan. 1917.

Thanks, that sounds conclusive... Elveden and Thetford are close together. When an institution like the IWM mislabels an image and refuses to correct the caption the error gets perpetuated ad infinitum.

[centurion]

It was specifically designed to defeat the "concentrated charge" (geballte Ladung) that the Germans created by strapping six to nine extra explosive heads to a hand grenade.

No it wasn't. These charges were introduced to anti tank work later in the war when tanks and the danger they posed had been well established. A single grenade proved less than effective against a tank, especially the Mk IV with its thicker armour. By the time of Cambrai (long after grenade roofs had been abandoned) German anti tank squads were using multiple grenades in a bag. There is a very good German account of the defence of Fontaine by the officer in command of an anti tank squad that describes this. Even the strongest man found it nigh on impossible to throw a bag of grenades onto the roof of a tank even if he could get right up to the side of the vehicle. It was more usual to lob the bags under the tank or under the tracks. The multiple heads grenade had the same problem. More usedagainst tanks in WW2 than WW1 (one placed under the rear of the turret of a Soviet Medium tank would blow it right off) they were effectively demolition charges to be placed against something and far too heavy to throw. The grenade netting and roofs were intended to protect against single grenades (especially as on the Mk I the engine exhausted straight through unprotected holes in the tank roof and a grenade down one of these would knock it out). As with the rear steering wheels operational experience soon proved the grenade roofs to be more trouble than they were worth and they were quickly abandoned

[Tom W.]

No it wasn't. These charges were introduced to anti tank work later in the war when tanks and the danger they posed had been well established.

Yes, it was. The Germans used the concentrated charges early in the war, and the British had seen their effects. When they designed the anti-grenade screen, it wasn't to protect against single hand grenades, which didn't have the power to do much damage. The multiple grenades in a bag were also called a "concentrated charge" (geballte Ladung). According to Anleitung für Kompagnieführer (K.F.U.), the concentrated charge made of sand bags filled with grenade heads were used against strong points. I suppose they may have tried to throw it on top of tanks, but that's not what they were originally designed for.

The concentrated charge consisting of multiple grenade heads attached to a single grenade were also not designed for use against tanks, but the grenade screens were intended to protect against them. Tanks were considered "rolling strong points," and the British had the foresight to come up with a means to defeat weapons used against strong points. Unfortunately the Germans soon came up with a countermeasure.

[centurion]

Yes, it was. The Germans used the concentrated charges early in the war, and the British had seen their effects. When they designed the anti-grenade screen, it wasn't to protect against single hand grenades, which didn't have the power to do much damage. The multiple grenades in a bag were also called a "concentrated charge" (geballte Ladung). According to Anleitung für Kompagnieführer (K.F.U.), the concentrated charge made of sand bags filled with grenade heads were used against strong points. I suppose they may have tried to throw it on top of tanks, but that's not what they were originally designed for.

The concentrated charge consisting of multiple grenade heads attached to a single grenade were also not designed for use against tanks, but the grenade screens were intended to protect against them. Tanks were considered "rolling strong points," and the British had the foresight to come up with a means to defeat weapons used against strong points. Unfortunately the Germans soon came up with a countermeasure.

But there is no evidence that they were used against tanks before 1918 long after grenade screens were abandoned (these were only used briefly in 1916 on a few Mk Is). The stuff about fishhooks is tosh. The screens were officially called bomb roofs (ie anti grenade roofs). Sorry but German accounts make clear that grenades in sacks were specifically used against tanks in 1917 -these were not engineering weapons which seemto have been an entirely seperate development. Evidence please

[Tom W.]

But there is no evidence that they were used against tanks before 1918 long after grenade screens were abandoned (these were only used briefly in 1916 on a few Mk Is). The stuff about fishhooks is tosh. The screens were officially called bomb roofs (ie anti grenade roofs). Sorry but German accounts make clear that grenades in sacks were specifically used against tanks in 1917 -these were not engineering weapons which seem to have been an entirely seperate development. Evidence please

2. Concentrated charge. Preparation: Six or more grenade heads are bound with wire around a hand grenade, all of the openings facing one side. Detonators are clamped into the openings with small slivers of wood.

One man crawls near to the obstacle which must be destroyed and searches for a shell hole as cover. At this point he completes the charge (screwing in a hand-grenade handle with blasting cap in it), pulls the lanyard, and throws the charge onto the obstacle. (Explodes in 5 1/2 seconds.)...

A concentrated charge can also be prepared by filling a sandbag half or three-quarters full with hand-grenade heads and then inserting a hand grenade with the handle. The bag must be tied so that the handle visibly protrudes. Wrapping with wire or strips of sand bag increases the strength.

To destroy wire mesh by throwing hand grenades requires a fish-hook device. The fish-hook device is shown in Sketch 5, while a hand grenade with fish-hook devices is shown in Sketch 6. (A wire ring is wrapped around the grenade head; this wire is connected to the fish hooks.)

From Anleitung für Kompagnieführer (K.F.U.). Berlin: Reichsdruckerei, 1917.

These were techniques were codified in 1917 but had been in use as early as 1915. The Germans knocked out the gun positions in Fort Vaux, June of 1916, with concentrated charges made of sand bags willed with hand-grenade heads. I have a photo of a German assault trooper with concentrated charges made of sandbags filled with hand-grenade heads attacking a bunker during training. The concentrated charges came first; they were then adapted for use in antitank warfare. The British were aware of the concentrated charges and fitted their tanks with mesh to protect against concentrated charges, not single grenades. A single grenade could not take out a tank, as the British designers well knew.

Judging from the photos I have of concentrated charges made of sand sacks filled with hand-grenade heads, I find it impossible to believe that anyone thought they could heave one up on the top of a tank, but maybe in desperation someone tried it.

[centurion]

The multi headed grenades that you show are based on the Stielhandgranate 1917 which had a more powerful filling. Stick grenades were initially percussion grenades which were completely unsuitable for use as combined demolition charges (the user would blow himself up) and it wasn't until 1916 that time fused stick grenades were introduced and a multi headed version could even be considered. The cap on the end of the stick conceals the pull for the fuse. These would,BTW, be heavier than grenades in a sack and even more impossible to throw up on top of a tank.

The British tank designers would seem to have been remarkably foresighted to include a defence on the tanks of 1916 against a weapon that only appeared in 1917-which is also the reason why the instructions you quote are dated 1917. It refers to a fish hook device not fish hooks and on a grenade not multiheaded lash ups (which would have to be placed not thrown). British tanks had dispensed with mesh roofs by the end of 1916 and only a very limited number ever had them (many of the original tanks were never so fitted). So still no evidence to support the theory.

[Tom W.]

The multi headed grenades that you show are based on the Stielhandgranate 1917 which had a more powerful filling. Stick grenades were initially percussion grenades which were completely unsuitable for use as combined demolition charges (the user would blow himself up) and it wasn't until 1916 that time fused stick grenades were introduced and a multi headed version could even be considered. The cap on the end of the stick conceals the pull for the fuse. These would,BTW, be heavier than grenades in a sack and even more impossible to throw up on top of a tank.

The British tank designers would seem to have been remarkably foresighted to include a defence on the tanks of 1916 against a weapon that only appeared in 1917-which is also the reason why the instructions you quote are dated 1917. It refers to a fish hook device not fish hooks and on a grenade not multiheaded lash ups (which would have to be placed not thrown). British tanks had dispensed with mesh roofs by the end of 1916 and only a very limited number ever had them (many of the original tanks were never so fitted). So still no evidence to support the theory.

You're not correct. The M.1915 stick grenade was issued in both timed and percussion versions. They were also used as concentrated charges from 1915.

On October 15, 1915, a Leutnant Schneider of Landwehr Pioneer Battalion No. 14 threw five concentrated charges into French trenches at the Hartmannsweilerkopf during an assault by the 1st Assault Company of Assault Detachment Rohr and the 82nd Landwehr Brigade of the 12th Landwehr Division. Note the date. Also, as I said before, the 1917 manual was codifying tactics used long before. By 1916 the British were aware of the concentrated charge and the method used to destroy wire meshing. The concentrated charges were thrown, not placed.

The M.1915 time-fused stick grenade is on the left, while the M.1915 percussion stick grenade is on the right.

[RodB]

Were exceptionally big men assigned to, or take on at their own initiative, special tasks that needed their capabilities, such as in this case hurling concentrated charges ? If so, techniques that would be beyond the average grenadier would then be possible.

[centurion]

You're not correct. The M.1915 stick grenade was issued in both timed and percussion versions. They were also used as concentrated charges from 1915.

On October 15, 1915, a Leutnant Schneider of Landwehr Pioneer Battalion No. 14 threw five concentrated charges into French trenches at the Hartmannsweilerkopf during an assault by the 1st Assault Company of Assault Detachment Rohr and the 82nd Landwehr Brigade of the 12th Landwehr Division. Note the date. Also, as I said before, the 1917 manual was codifying tactics used long before. By 1916 the British were aware of the concentrated charge and the method used to destroy wire meshing. The concentrated charges were thrown, not placed.

The M.1915 time-fused stick grenade is on the left, while the M.1915 percussion stick grenade is on the right.

There is a big difference between lobbing a multi headed grenade or a bag down into a trench and up on top of a tank. Do you have evidence in this case that they were multi headed anyway rather than a bag?. In WW2 such charges were always placed. If the British were aware of "the method used to destroy wire meshing" as you say why would they bother to use mesh at all?

Lt Spremberg Infantry Reg 52 writing about Nov 1917

"We had found a hand grenade dump in a previous assault on the village and tried at first to throw a hand grenade under the tracks of the tank. This succeeded . The grenades however were too weak in explosive ability.I then ordered sandbags to be brought and four hand grenades to be placed in them, with one grenade tied near the top of the bag so that only the firing spring showed.

Then came a favourable moment and Musicians Buttenberg and Schroeder, both storm troopers rushed upon the firing giant and, from throwing distance tossed the two bunched charges under the tracks"

Taschenbuch der Tanks

Musicians were often chosen for their height and muscularity (to be impressive) so they would have been big men. So in November 1917 using grenades in a sack against tanks was still an on the spot improvisation.

[centurion]

Having dug into a number of tomes Glanville amongst others that have bomb roofs mentioned in a number of places

1. The mesh roofs were ordered, seemingly as an afterthought. from Metropolitan. 75 in total - it's not known if all were delivered.
2. Only a small number were actually fitted
3. They were intended initially to have a dual role acting as a protection against bombs (hand grenades) AND acting as a wireless aerial.
4. Reception was so weak that an operator could not hear the signal over the noise of the tank engine and the wireless idea was not followed on - this may explain why so few were fitted and why they were removed soon after.
5. A second design dispensing with the mesh (and presumably the aerial function) was produced by Kenneth Symes, this used mild steel plates of several thicknesses to produce an early form of spaced armour. 25 sets were made and 23 despatched to France but none fitted to a tank there.

Given all of this I would suspect that the tank in the photo had an improvised set of netting to test the feasibility of having dual purpose bomb roofs and is a one off. The Metropolitan made roofs are much more workmanlike. As far as I can tell the Metropolitan roofs were shipped to France and fitted there.

[delta]

The roof racks were fixed, in a rush, on arrival of the C Coy tanks at the Loop.

The D Company tanks were not so fitted not to the siz tanks in No 1 section, which went into action at Corcelette and which were offloaded nearer to Albert.

[Tom W.]

Were exceptionally big men assigned to, or take on at their own initiative, special tasks that needed their capabilities, such as in this case hurling concentrated charges ? If so, techniques that would be beyond the average grenadier would then be possible.

"The two best bombers out of every nine are designated to attack tanks with bunches of five grenades, wired together, which are thrown on top of the tanks."

From War Department. A Survey of German Tactics. Washington. D.C. Government Printing Office, 1918.

A couple of things to keep in mind are that Allied intelligence reports were sometimes faulty. Anleitung für Kompagnieführer (K.F.U.) says specifically that six hand-greande heads were wired together onto one full grenade; in fact, given how they were detonated, it would likely be impossible for five full hand grenades to be made to explode at once. All five firing yanyards would have to be pulled at exactly the same time.

Also, even though the report is dated 1918, the German use of concentrated charges dates back to 1915. But yes, the best grenadiers--meaning the strongest--were chosen for the job of tossing concentrated charges onto the tops of tanks.

[centurion]

"The two best bombers out of every nine are designated to attack tanks with bunches of five grenades, wired together, which are thrown on top of the tanks."

From War Department. A Survey of German Tactics. Washington. D.C. Government Printing Office, 1918.

A couple of things to keep in mind are that Allied intelligence reports were sometimes faulty

As was this one. Captured 1918 documents containing German instructions for anti tank defence confirms the two best bombers but states

"(2) Hand grenades. Used singly they are ineffective. Concentrated charges (two without the stick tied onto a third), thrown on the track or horizontal surface" Only one lanyard needed to be pulled the explosion of one head detonated the others

Even Geoff Capes would have difficulty throwing five up onto a tank. You keep quoting stuff years after the tanks were introduced and saying 'but it was done long before this' - this is not evidence of anything!